National Go Topless Day

[Sammy-San]

I don't think you actually are though. You've been given answers, but simply reject them.


Breasts have been sexualized in this society and many others. Your original question concerned whether Christians should participate, iirc.

If bared breasts are seen as sexually alluring, and not commonly bared in a society, then a woman baring her breasts in public is inviting men to look at her with sexual thoughts, and drawing attention to herself. We as Christians should avoid doing those things.

The law really shouldn't be the issue. If the law commands something we should not do, or forbids something we should do, we ought to follow God and not man's laws.

And I understand the premise you suggest - that if people saw them all the time they would become desensitized. Perhaps. But whether or not that is actually a good thing is a different issue.

Is all this really over tan lines? Tanning beds, the privacy of one's own yard or roof, places established specifically for those who want to go nude or topless, etc. There are other solutions than proposing society be reconfigured.

Or was it equality? Men and women have different bodies. Biological fact, not discrimination. Being paid less for doing the same job, discrimination. Recognizing that breasts on women are considered sexual, not discrimination.

Why are men with facial hair forced to wear beard-nets in food service? Isn't that discrimination? Women wouldn't be fired for not wearing them. So why must men? Because men and women are physically, biologically different. That difference creates a need for having different policies based on their particular bodies. It's not so very different from what you suggest.

You may very well not agree with me, and that's your right of course. But you aren't really waiting for an answer. You just refuse to accept them, it seems. Thus we are nearly 1000 posts into a subject that most people are pretty decided on, one way or another.

But then I think you also said a few pages back that you weren't exoecting to change minds.

This really is intended as a friendly reply, though I'm probably not skillful enough to convey that and my points at the same time.

What is your view on the earlier post about the Little Mermaid that implied little kids dont need to be protected from "little cartoon breasts"?

That is totally irrelevant to the topic of the modesty of real life people.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What is your view on the earlier post about the Little Mermaid that implied little kids dont need to be protected from "little cartoon breasts"?

I don't think I read it.

Which cartoon? Wasn't Disney's Little Mermaid of "marrying age" and so developed?

Disney's answer might shed some light on the subject. If they were asked, "why don't you show the young women's bared breasts in Disney movies?"

Do you think parents would buy Disney movies for their children, especially little girls, in this case? Do you think they would go to Disney and have their children's photos taken with topless Princess characters? Why do you think they might not?

(Disney might get a whole new clientele this way ... but I don't consider that good for either society or Disney.)

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't think I read it.

Which cartoon? Wasn't Disney's Little Mermaid of "marrying age" and so developed?

Disney's answer might shed some light on the subject. If they were asked, "why don't you show the young women's bared breasts in Disney movies?"

Do you think parents would buy Disney movies for their children, especially little girls, in this case? Do you think they would go to Disney and have their children's photos taken with topless Princess characters? Why do you think they might not?

(Disney might get a whole new clientele this way ... but I don't consider that good for either society or Disney.)

Wasn't she technically not a woman since she was part fish?

Would it be her face that makes the chest indecent? This reminds me of this comment you made.

Because men and women are physically, biologically different. That difference creates a need for having different policies based on their particular bodies.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Wasn't she technically not a woman since she was part fish?

Would it be her face that makes the chest indecent? This reminds me of this comment you made.

Since mermaids are mythical creatures, there's no real applicable principle.

IIRC, they used the fish part on the lower body and used shells to cover the breasts.

To answer your question, do you think drawings of various body parts can be indecent in themselves? If done as graffiti, they will receive quicker attention to cover up, and additional penalties if caught.

 

[Sammy-San]

Since mermaids are mythical creatures, there's no real applicable principle.

IIRC, they used the fish part on the lower body and used shells to cover the breasts.

To answer your question, do you think drawings of various body parts can be indecent in themselves? If done as graffiti, they will receive quicker attention to cover up, and additional penalties if caught.

What about the fact that mermaids have fish bodies and not "boy/girl" parts (to avoid crass language)? Do you think that doesn't change the decency standards? I think because the intent is to resemble a young woman it practically is one and the same modesty standards apply. Would you agree?

I agree what you said about drawings being indecent because at the aquarium the drawings of mermaids have the breasts covered.

What do you mean by there's no real applicable principle?

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't think I read it.

Which cartoon? Wasn't Disney's Little Mermaid of "marrying age" and so developed?

Disney's answer might shed some light on the subject. If they were asked, "why don't you show the young women's bared breasts in Disney movies?"

Do you think parents would buy Disney movies for their children, especially little girls, in this case? Do you think they would go to Disney and have their children's photos taken with topless Princess characters? Why do you think they might not?

(Disney might get a whole new clientele this way ... but I don't consider that good for either society or Disney.)

Wouldn't it be indecent if boys see it?

 

[~Anastasia~]

What about the fact that mermaids have fish bodies and not "boy/girl" parts (to avoid crass language)? Do you think that doesn't change the decency standards? I think because the intent is to resemble a young woman it practically is one and the same modesty standards apply. Would you agree?

I agree what you said about drawings being indecent because at the aquarium the drawings of mermaids have the breasts covered.

What do you mean by there's no real applicable principle?

The presence of absence of genital differences on mermaids doesn't matter. And that's kind of what I mean by it not being applicable. Mermaids aren't real, so you can't really discuss principles related to their genitals and then use that to reach conclusions that apply to humans. That's over complicating things, and veering into fantasy.

Mermaids don't always have to be covered. Breasts, whether real or cartoon, have a certain connotation. But I remember mermaids from my youth in a story book that were just drawn without breasts, not covered. I looked for a similar image, but couldn't find one. I did find this though, on a kid's "how to draw" site.

No clothing, no breasts, not sexualized, perfectly fine for kids.

I won't post it here (I found rather problematic images) but in contrast, I saw many mermaids with bared breasts in alluring poses, obviously drawn to elicit sexual attention.

It's usually not difficult to tell the difference. But this is probably too far afield for the OP's thread, so I don't want to talk anymore about it here out of respect for the OP.



Edit to reply to this one, because I don't want to post even more posts that may be off topic

Wouldn't it be indecent if boys see it?

I said children, not just girls. The reason I said "especially girls" is that each sex would have secondary challenges as a result, but the ones for the girls would be more serious. I had a daughter. I know why I wouldn't have shown her cartoons of topless young women (or mermaids).

 

[Sammy-San]

The presence of absence of genital differences on mermaids doesn't matter. And that's kind of what I mean by it not being applicable. Mermaids aren't real, so you can't really discuss principles related to their genitals and then use that to reach conclusions that apply to humans. That's over complicating things, and veering into fantasy.

Mermaids don't always have to be covered. Breasts, whether real or cartoon, have a certain connotation. But I remember mermaids from my youth in a story book that were just drawn without breasts, not covered. I looked for a similar image, but couldn't find one. I did find this though, on a kid's "how to draw" site.

View attachment 194254

No clothing, no breasts, not sexualized, perfectly fine for kids.

I won't post it here (I found rather problematic images) but in contrast, I saw many mermaids with bared breasts in alluring poses, obviously drawn to elicit sexual attention.

It's usually not difficult to tell the difference. But this is probably too far afield for the OP's thread, so I don't want to talk anymore about it here out of respect for the OP.

The presence of absence of genital differences on mermaids doesn't matter. And that's kind of what I mean by it not being applicable. Mermaids aren't real, so you can't really discuss principles related to their genitals and then use that to reach conclusions that apply to humans. That's over complicating things, and veering into fantasy.

Mermaids don't always have to be covered. Breasts, whether real or cartoon, have a certain connotation. But I remember mermaids from my youth in a story book that were just drawn without breasts, not covered. I looked for a similar image, but couldn't find one. I did find this though, on a kid's "how to draw" site.

View attachment 194254

No clothing, no breasts, not sexualized, perfectly fine for kids.

I won't post it here (I found rather problematic images) but in contrast, I saw many mermaids with bared breasts in alluring poses, obviously drawn to elicit sexual attention.

It's usually not difficult to tell the difference. But this is probably too far afield for the OP's thread, so I don't want to talk anymore about it here out of respect for the OP.



Edit to reply to this one, because I don't want to post even more posts that may be off topic



I said children, not just girls. The reason I said "especially girls" is that each sex would have secondary challenges as a result, but the ones for the girls would be more serious. I had a daughter. I know why I wouldn't have shown her cartoons of topless young women (or mermaids).

Is feminine faces what causes the modesty issue? That is what I alluded to in my earlier comment.

 

[Archivist]

Wouldn't it be indecent if boys see it?

Walt Disney's classic "Fantasia" from 1940 includes a scene with topless female centaurs. Apparently no one had an issue with it way back in 1940.

Now can we please get back on topic?

 

[Archivist]

I don't think you actually are though. You've been given answers, but simply reject them.

Others have answered the question, but I am asking Superhero Sam, who still has not answered the question.

Breasts have been sexualized in this society and many others. Your original question concerned whether Christians should participate.

And no one has convinced me that they should not.

If bared breasts are seen as sexually alluring, and not commonly bared in a society, then a woman baring her breasts in public is inviting men to look at her with sexual thoughts, and drawing attention to herself. We as Christians should avoid doing those things.

And yet men go topless, inviting women to look at them with sexual thoughts. And yes, men are more visually oriented then women, but that does not mean that some women don't look at firm pecs or six-pack abs with sexual thoughts.

The law really shouldn't be the issue. If the law commands something we should not do, or forbids something we should do, we ought to follow God and not man's laws.

And nothing in scripture commands women to not go topless in public. In fact nudity was much more common in Biblical times.

And I understand the premise you suggest - that if people saw them all the time they would become desensitized. Perhaps. But whether or not that is actually a good thing is a different issue.

If it is a cultural thing, and I think we agreed that it was, then why wouldn't that be a good thing.

Is all this really over tan lines? Tanning beds, the privacy of one's own yard or roof, places established specifically for those who want to go nude or topless, etc. There are other solutions than proposing society be reconfigured.

Society has been reconfigured many times over many things.

Or was it equality? Men and women have different bodies. Biological fact, not discrimination. Being paid less for doing the same job, discrimination. Recognizing that breasts on women are considered sexual, not discrimination.

And if it hadn't once been illegal for either sex to go topless you might have a point.

Why are men with facial hair forced to wear beard-nets in food service? Isn't that discrimination? Women wouldn't be fired for not wearing them. So why must men? Because men and women are physically, biologically different. That difference creates a need for having different policies based on their particular bodies. It's not so very different from what you suggest.

But the beard net regulation doesn't specify that it applies only to men. It would apply to women with facial hair as well. See 21 CFR 110.10.

You may very well not agree with me, and that's your right of course. But you aren't really waiting for an answer. You just refuse to accept them, it seems. Thus we are nearly 1000 posts into a subject that most people are pretty decided on, one way or another.

You are accepting my answers either. We really just need to agree to disagree. However, I would say that history is on my side. I think that we are going to see it become ever more commonplace for women to go topless in public, and at some point this won't be an issue.

 

[Sammy-San]

Walt Disney's classic "Fantasia" from 1940 includes a scene with topless female centaurs. Apparently no one had an issue with it way back in 1940.

Now can we please get back on topic?

What was female about them? Faces?

 

[Archivist]

What was female about them? Faces?

Everything from the waist up.

Now could you please be polite and answer my question?

 

[Sammy-San]

Everything from the waist up.

Now could you please be polite and answer my question?

What do you mean everything from the waist up? Facial features?

A male centaur could have a bigger chest than a small chested female one.

 

[Archivist]

What do you mean everything from the waist up? Facial features?

A male centaur could have a bigger chest than a small chested female one.

Ill answer your question when you answer mine.

You want your questions to be answered when you refuse to answer questions that are asked of you.

 

[Sammy-San]

Ill answer your question when you answer mine.

What question?

 

[Archivist]

What question?

Please explain why a woman who chooses to go topless in public should face arrest while men do not?

I've asked you multiple times.

 

[Sammy-San]

Please explain why a woman who chooses to go topless in public should face arrest while men do not?

I've asked you multiple times.

I've already asked it-the Bible talks about breasts in a sexual manner and its almost universal that bare breasts are obscene and indecent.

Now can you answer my cartoon question?

 

[Archivist]

I've already asked it-the Bible talks about breasts in a sexual manner and its almost universal that bare breasts are obscene and indecent.

That doesn't answer the question. Why should women face arrest while men do not. This is a secular nation so it doesn't matter what the Bible says.

Now can you answer my cartoon question?[/QUOTE]

I already answered your question. From the waist up these were women, yes with fully developed breasts. Surely you have seen Fantasia.

 

[Sammy-San]

That doesn't answer the question. Why should women face arrest while men do not. This is a secular nation so it doesn't matter what the Bible says.

Now can you answer my cartoon question?

I already answered your question. From the waist up these were women, yes with fully developed breasts. Surely you have seen Fantasia.[/QUOTE]

Is it because of the breasts or because of their faces, body shape?

 

[Archivist]

Is it because of the breasts or because of their faces, body shape?

What do you mean by it?

And I still want an answer to my question. You can't arrest people because of what the Bible says or does not say.